Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[BTW 370]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Most flus have R0 values between 2-3.  H1N1-09 is exceptionally low at 1.5 and that's the number people repeating because it's the last US epidemic.

I got that R-value for flu from this article and this paper.  Where are you seeing the claim that most flus have an R value of 2-3?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,142]

2 hours ago, bigup2dahorns said:

 

They need to have these available so you can test at home.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

6 minutes ago, stork642 said:

Oops.  That’s a giant recalculation.  

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

3 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

WTF is Elon doing?

[dcar00 14,356]

26 minutes ago, Hate said:

Wait, doesn't this show that we are doing better than forecast?  Or is this an estimated total number of infections tested and confirmed or ortherwise? 

edit : i'm estimating 3M not 10M

 

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Your scenario is really what I'm hoping for.  What all of that relies upon is good, reliable data.  What are we really experiencing, what is the real infection rate, how many people have already been infected, what measures yielded the best results at reducing transmission, etc.  This has to be approached methodically and scientifically.

Maybe NYC will be our Italy.  Maybe Boise will be our example of a city that shut things down before community transmission really kicked in.  Then where do we go from there?  What can we do on a business-opening level (maybe we can learn from Hubei province -- manufacturing is open now, but workers still must maintain social distancing....and most everyone wears a mask everywhere).  Instead of starting from conclusions that we want to reach, let's gather data and let that lead us to the best conclusions.

I really wish we had an actual real hospitalization number.  This is really the missing piece.  It is sad the states can't get this to the fed and have it be reported.  

we need to not allow flights to hot zones

for swine in first approx 4 months they used a multiplier of 79 x known cases. see below

"Using this approach, between April and July 2009, we estimate that the median multiplier of reported to estimated cases was 79; that is, every reported case of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 may represent 79 total cases, with a 90% probability range of 47–148, for a median estimate of 3.0 million (range 1.8–5.7 million) symptomatic cases of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 in the United States"

lets say they estimated half that or 40 today(we are 2 months in).  about 3M cases with 1050 dead.

Edited March 26, 2020 by dcar00

[JBJ 3,664]

1 minute ago, BTW said:

I got that R-value for flu from this article and this paper.  Where are you seeing the claim that most flus have an R value of 2-3?

That paper is specifically studying h1n1-pdm09.

[dcar00 14,356]

methinks that Imperial College London guy and his paper is going to become somewhat infamous

[bigup2dahorns 3,343]

[Hate 20,144]

13 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

A $4 mask > no mask. I think the issue folks are having with your stance is they, and I, suspect any "solutions" to the price gouging will result in the "no mask" scenario. Of course we will have defeated price gouging, but if you don't allow for profit off of shortages then you will face more shortages.

 

The shortage is the enemy, the high price a symptom (and, arguably, a cure).

Agreed to an extent, but price gouging is still price gouging.  Raising prices to meet your rising production cost is a completely different thing. 

Here is a seemingly obvious case of gouging.  Some private buyers bought a bunch of masks and are now trying to auction them off

https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/750000-medical-masks-sit-in-houston-warehouse-due-to-price-gouging-allegations/285-4dedce13-a246-406c-9a68-f42cdb6b7cd1

They should be prosecuted by the AG office and I have no issue with that. A manufacturer that has to increase production to meet demand that is selling straight to the medical community while also raising prices to cover increased costs (overtime including maybe even hazard pay, increased transportation cost, increased energy costs) is a comepltely differen thing. 

[BTW 370]

Keep trying ...

"Our strategy in these analyses was to fix R₀ at some value and analyze how the system dynamics changed when altering the other parameters, providing an opportunity to determine if the information gained from R₀ estimates was relevant. We chose R₀ = 1.5 as a baseline because it is a value that has been applied to previous influenza pandemics "

@JBJ

Edited March 26, 2020 by BTW

[SHOOTER12 8,826]

16 hours ago, Doc Reeves said:

SIAP

wonder what an “I told you so” from the entire world feels like...

 

Attention seeker who licked toilet seat and joked about getting coronavirus now has coronavirus

 Comment

A young American who licked a toilet seat to take part in the ‘coronavirus challenge’ has reportedly since come down with the disease (Picture: TikTok)

 

Jacob GeanousWednesday 25 Mar 2020 1:39 pm

A clout-chaser who licked a toilet seat and joked about catching coronavirus has reportedly done just that.

The unidentified youngster gained internet notoriety after he filmed himself putting his mouth on the toilet as part of the ‘coronavirus challenge,’ which has seen people licking objects in the face of the global pandemic. The footage was later posted to TikTok

That person has since reportedly contracted Covid-19, according to Piers Morgan. 

‘You may remember also the other idiot, this is also in America, as part of the coronavirus challenge some morons are doing, went into his local toilet cubicle and licked the bowl,’ Morgan said on Good Morning Britain.

‘I think this called karma – he’s got coronavirus.’ 

The ‘coronavirus challenge’ has seen young people all over the world lick public objects despite the worsening public health crisis (Picture: TikTok)

Health experts have branded the internet challenge to be ‘highly irresponsible’ and said it will lead to the spread of the viral infection. It reportedly began after a woman was filmed licking an airplane toilet seat as someone in the background said, ‘It’s corona time’.......

Darwin....You Da Man!

[Trey3216 15,355]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

For the most part, capitalism works okay.  I have a problem with price gouging during a crisis.  You should too.

Ever thought that input commodities may be scarce as well?  that's part of the function of price

[Horn of Gabriel 1,671]

8 minutes ago, Hate said:

Agreed to an extent, but price gouging is still price gouging.  Raising prices to meet your rising production cost is a completely different thing. 

Here is a seemingly obvious case of gouging.  Some private buyers bought a bunch of masks and are now trying to auction them off

https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/750000-medical-masks-sit-in-houston-warehouse-due-to-price-gouging-allegations/285-4dedce13-a246-406c-9a68-f42cdb6b7cd1

They should be prosecuted by the AG office and I have no issue with that. A manufacturer that has to increase production to meet demand that is selling straight to the medical community while also raising prices to cover increased costs (overtime including maybe even hazard pay, increased transportation cost, increased energy costs) is a comepltely differen thing. 

Price isn't based on cost.  (Good) pricing is based on value and what someone is willing-to-pay.  Right now people are willing to pay more because the value that masks create is higher.

As to the question of if a price is fair, that's different.  It's fair if the market thinks it's fair and pays the price.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

1 minute ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Price isn't based on cost.  (Good) pricing is based on value and what someone is willing-to-pay.  Right now people are willing to pay more because the value that masks create is higher.

As to the question of if a price is fair, that's different.  It's fair if the market thinks it's fair and pays the price.

I don't think fair is the question, but whether it is ethical. Not to mention legal at this point. 

[Dahobbs 17,682]

43 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

You know it. Somewhere, right now, Dahobbs is shitting himself in agony and wondering if this potentially impacts support for his straight-line assumptions that we're going to see 10,000 deaths per day in the US as of April 10, or, you know, 15 days from now.

Seriously? I couldn't read the FT times link, but here is another article discussing his comments. 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/

The main thing to note is that the new estimate that the UK will be handle the virus is based on the fact that they went into lock down. It is also based on additional data that "suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected" and as a result they "revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus" to 3 from 2.5. 

I'm more interested in the paper on the model utilized in the Oxford study. It is really interesting. The primary difference between this and prior modeling (and my own assumptions) is that it uses a much lower number for the percentage of the population susceptible to serious illness. I've been wondering myself if there was any model utilizing lower severity assumptions that would match with observed fatalities and timeline. It is nice to know it exists and is a possibility.  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model (13).pdf?dl=0

However, Ferguson had some criticism of that model, saying its assumptions on severity weren't consistent with the observed data. Hopefully he is wrong. Hopefully I am wrong.  

I believe that JBJ's model works on a similar framework, so I'd be curious about his take on the above. 

[JBJ 3,664]

20 minutes ago, BTW said:

Keep trying ...

"Our strategy in these analyses was to fix R₀ at some value and analyze how the system dynamics changed when altering the other parameters, providing an opportunity to determine if the information gained from R₀ estimates was relevant. We chose R₀ = 1.5 as a baseline because it is a value that has been applied to previous influenza pandemics "

@JBJ

This help?

https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2020posts/how-scientists-quantify-outbreaks.html

"H1N1 Influenza, 2009    1.46 to 1.48
Seasonal Influenza    2 to 3

On the other hand, the influenza virus is less infectious, with its R0 ranging from 2 to 3. Influenza, therefore, does not cause the same explosive outbreaks as measles, but it persists due to its ability to mutate and evade the human immune system."

Not that it matters because base reproduction rate is only indirectly related to effective reprodution rate which is only indirectly related to transmission rate.

Edited March 26, 2020 by JBJ

[dcar00 14,356]

5 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Price isn't based on cost.  (Good) pricing is based on value and what someone is willing-to-pay.  Right now people are willing to pay more because the value that masks create is higher.

As to the question of if a price is fair, that's different.  It's fair if the market thinks it's fair and pays the price.

well look who placed out of ECON 301

[B00M 6,463]

7 minutes ago, JBJ said:

This help?

https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2020posts/how-scientists-quantify-outbreaks.html

"H1N1 Influenza, 2009    1.46 to 1.48
Seasonal Influenza    2 to 3

On the other hand, the influenza virus is less infectious, with its R0 ranging from 2 to 3. Influenza, therefore, does not cause the same explosive outbreaks as measles, but it persists due to its ability to mutate and evade the human immune system."

Not that it matters because base reproduction rate is only indirectly related to transmission rate.

Is it possible that seasonal influenza is multiple simultaneous strains so the combined R0 is 2-3 but individual strains are under 2.0? Any chance you're both right and we can move on? 

 

[Trey3216 15,355]

10 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Price isn't based on cost.  (Good) pricing is based on value and what someone is willing-to-pay.  Right now people are willing to pay more because the value that masks create is higher.

As to the question of if a price is fair, that's different.  It's fair if the market thinks it's fair and pays the price.

To an extent.  Price is based on cost when input commodities are scarce.  One input commodity is labor.  One input commodity is material.  If both materials and labor are scarce, then prices are higher for a given product.  The marginal utility of the product at a given time is also a factor.  Right now, marginal utility is high, and doing 10-100x the amount of production combined with possible material and labor shortages (labor shortages due to overtime, possibly having to limit the amount of workers on a floor at one time, etc) and you get higher prices.   

 

Could it be gouging?  Naturally.  But I'd imagine as things get ramped up going forward that price curve will drop.   They could also be charging 2 different prices in theory.  They may be charging regular pricing direct to govt agencies and hospital groups but charging an astronomically higher price to the Fondren's of the world to disincentivize them from purchasing a critical product.  

 

But that's just an idea.  It has to be evil capitalists.   

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Fuck you. Technically what I am speaking about isn't even politics.  Price gouging is happening.  Shortages are happening.  Its a current event and topical.  Your desire for a safe space is going to kill you. Information and pushback against wrong is more important than ever right now.

Nah right back at you. Your intent was to go politics as per your usual antics. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

23 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Ever thought that input commodities may be scarce as well?  that's part of the function of price

What do believe the inputs are for N95 masks?

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

3 hours ago, SHOOTER12 said:

Don't sweat it, just take care of yourselves and then make up for it big time and cherish all the future trip.s together x100000000.

Yeah, I hear ya.  A little bit selfish on my part as well.  He was coming  back east for several events this Spring, and Summer, hopefully the Summer things go as planned (weddings, bachelor parties)

Edited March 26, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[Trey3216 15,355]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

What do believe the inputs are for N95 masks?

Do you not understand that when every country and company in the world is buying up shit to make this as fast as they can that there just might be a short term dearth in material to make it?  You ever seen what happens to gasoline prices during a hurricane?   My God man, this is pretty damn simple economics.  

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Nah right back at you. Your intent was to go politics as per your usual antics. 

And your intent was to be a dumb rube who is high as a kite as per your usual antics.  

Price gouging isn't a political topic.

[Dahobbs 17,682]

26 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

methinks that Imperial College London guy and his paper is going to become somewhat infamous

Y'all are seriously misinterpreting statements. He is lowering the total BECAUSE THEY WENT INTO LOCK DOWN. The large numbers from the original paper were based on doing nothing or light measures. Here are the actual estimates from the paper:

• 550k when doing nothing
• 120k dead with case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, social distancing of entire population
• 71k dead with case isolation, social distancing, and closure of schools and universities
• 48k dead with case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, social distancing, and closure of schools and universities.

They just went into almost total lock down. Which scenario do you think that lines up with?

[LABEVO 928]

 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

3 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Do you not understand that when every country and company in the world is buying up shit to make this as fast as they can that there just might be a short term dearth in material to make it?  You ever seen what happens to gasoline prices during a hurricane?   My God man, this is pretty damn simple economics.  

So answer the question. What do you believe the inputs are?

Why do you think gasoline prices rise in NC when a hurricane hits it when there is no associated loss of refining capacity or production?  Demand skyrockets. Same for water. 

Edited March 26, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[Pato del Muerto 52,589]

With the imperial model revision, why is nobody focused on his assertion that half of the dead would have died within the next 6 months anyway from something else?  What is the data driving that?

we need real numbers in more places. The more guesses and estimates in the equation, the less accurate it is. 

[dcar00 14,356]

3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

With the imperial model revision, why is nobody focused on his assertion that half of the dead would have died within the next 6 months anyway from something else?  What is the data driving that?

we need real numbers in more places. The more guesses and estimates in the equation, the less accurate it is. 

good luck with that.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

39 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

 

There are moments when I question the moral decisions surrounding the death penalty. 

This is not one of those times.

[Foosters 17,885]

1 hour ago, dcar00 said:

wasnt the Imperial College the one that said 2M dead in US.  now  he is saying UK is likely to have 1/10th of his original estimate?

Since everyone is commenting on this article, can one of you Times subscribers post the actual article?

[LABEVO 928]

 

[Skipper 6,197]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

 

we need real numbers in more places. The more guesses and estimates in the equation, the less accurate it is. 

In order to get that we need more testing data + large scale antibody testing.   Hell in New York alone mass antibody testing could tell us A LOT about this disease.  It's not perfect considering how much more dense it is + public transportation (i.e., you would expect it to spread faster there), but it would help.

[clapclapclap 9,000]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Its hard not to go CR on that, but you do have a manufacturer that has no or few additional input costs, yet is charging many times their normal price for a necessity during a crisis simply because demand is higher.  I'm sure the stock price of the mask manufacturer and its CEO's pay are on the rise.  Capitalism at work.

 

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

I'm not storming any plants.  It used to be $7 for a box of masks.  Now its $4 a mask.  The company isn't even attempting to "mask" the fact that it is gouging on the masks.

But 3M is doubling production to 100 million a month and shifting away from manufacturing masks for industrial purposes, so we will be gouged right into the arms of a new monopoly.

We are in a state of emergency.  This is no time to squeeze additional profits out.

 

The manufacturer, 3M, didn't increase prices.  But some retailers may have been gouging:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/22/masks-ppe-3m-coronavirus/

3M spokeswoman Jennifer Ehrlich said the company “has not changed the prices it charges for 3M respirators as a result of the covid-19 outbreak, but the company cannot control the prices dealers or retailers charge for 3M respirators.” 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/business/3m-ceo-n95-masks-target/index.html

Roman also said 3M is working with federal and state authorities to curb counterfeiting and price gouging of its products and devices, including the masks.

"We are in the process of working with large e-marketplace operators on a coordinated strategy and action plan to identify and remove counterfeiters and price gougers and to refer them to the appropriate law enforcement authorities," Roman wrote in a letter Tuesday to Attorney General William Barr...

 

...Roman also said

Spoiler

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by clapclapclap

[Dahobbs 17,682]

5 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Since everyone is commenting on this article, can one of you Times subscribers post the actual article?

 

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Seriously? I couldn't read the FT times link, but here is another article discussing his comments. 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/

The main thing to note is that the new estimate that the UK will be handle the virus is based on the fact that they went into lock down. It is also based on additional data that "suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected" and as a result they "revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus" to 3 from 2.5. 

I'm more interested in the paper on the model utilized in the Oxford study. It is really interesting. The primary difference between this and prior modeling (and my own assumptions) is that it uses a much lower number for the percentage of the population susceptible to serious illness. I've been wondering myself if there was any model utilizing lower severity assumptions that would match with observed fatalities and timeline. It is nice to know it exists and is a possibility.  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model (13).pdf?dl=0

However, Ferguson had some criticism of that model, saying its assumptions on severity weren't consistent with the observed data. Hopefully he is wrong. Hopefully I am wrong.  

I believe that JBJ's model works on a similar framework, so I'd be curious about his take on the above. 

Above, I provided a different article with his comments that isn't behind a pay wall. 

[Trey3216 15,355]

11 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

So answer the question. What do you believe the inputs are?

Why do you think gasoline prices rise in NC when a hurricane hits it when there is no associated loss of refining capacity or production?  Demand skyrockets. Same for water. 

And there's short term supply shortages... WTF are you even trying to argue about.  You're completely ignoring one of the fundamental factors of price.  

[1978horn 895]

5 minutes ago, LABEVO said:

 

Well, when they are open.....

[justhookit 4,191]

Maybe y’all should find another thread to argue about butter and knives. 

[Trey3216 15,355]

1 minute ago, justhookit said:

Maybe y’all should find another thread to argue about butter and knives. 

Guns & Butter man, Guns & Butter  

[dcar00 14,356]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Y'all are seriously misinterpreting statements. He is lowering the total BECAUSE THEY WENT INTO LOCK DOWN. The large numbers from the original paper were based on doing nothing or light measures. Here are the actual estimates from the paper:

• 550k when doing nothing
• 120k dead with case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, social distancing of entire population
• 71k dead with case isolation, social distancing, and closure of schools and universities
• 48k dead with case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, social distancing, and closure of schools and universities.

They just went into almost total lock down. Which scenario do you think that lines up with?

you and I are going to disagree on this but now he's going to less than half of the 48K even though they just went in to almost total lockdown?

my opinion and it is that only, is that he needed to adjust because his first assumption was way off based on what he is seeing.

[justhookit 4,191]

3 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Guns & Butter man, Guns & Butter  

Yes but I didn’t want to start a gun argument on this thread too

[JBJ 3,664]

3 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

you and I are going to disagree on this but now he's going to less than half of the 48K even though they just went in to almost total lockdown?

my opinion and it is that only, is that he needed to adjust because his first assumption was way off based on what he is seeing.

That wasn't his first assumption; it was his second.  His first suggested to go herd immunity as soon as possible and encourage spread.

[Beau Vine 54,416]

50 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Ever thought that input commodities may be scarce as well?  that's part of the function of price

You're about third person who has pointed that out to him, so I'd like to think that he's thought of that by now, but OTOH, he's still railing against capitalism, so maybe he hasn't.

[Trey3216 15,355]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

You're about third person who has pointed that out to him, so I'd like to think that he's thought of that by now, but OTOH, he's still railing against capitalism, so maybe he hasn't.

Yeah, I know.  Sometimes it's hard to resist  

[dcar00 14,356]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

That wasn't his first assumption; it was his second.  His first suggested to go herd immunity as soon as possible and encourage spread.

ha.  he's got 3 different shots to be right then.

[Dahobbs 17,682]

13 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

you and I are going to disagree on this but now he's going to less than half of the 48K even though they just went in to almost total lockdown?

my opinion and it is that only, is that he needed to adjust because his first assumption was way off based on what he is seeing.

I'm not quite sure I understand your question.  Of course you have to revise estimates as new data comes in, but please at least pay attention to what those revisions reflect. 

(1) It appears that their total lock down is actually a more severe action than he originally modeled. It shouldn't be surprising this results in a reduced fatality count.

(2) He revised the R0 from 2.5 to 3 based on new data. This would have also affected his results, although it isn't clear from the article what precisely it did to his model.

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by Dahobbs

[dcar00 14,356]

4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

You're about third person who has pointed that out to him, so I'd like to think that he's thought of that by now, but OTOH, he's still railing against capitalism, so maybe he hasn't.

wait. the mask fairy doesn't exist?

[dcar00 14,356]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm not quite sure I understand your question.  Of course you have to revise estimates as new data comes in, but please at least pay attention to what those revisions reflect. 

(1) It appears that their total lock down is actually a more severe action than he originally modeled. It shouldn't be surprising this results in a reduced fatality count.

(2) He revised the R0 from 2.5 to 3 based on data, which would have also affected his results, although it isn't clear from the article what precisely it did to his model.

 

My opinion is that there is a lot of fuzziness/unknown as to what total lockdown means and how someone might model it, how strictly it is adhered to, etc.   there is some reality in what he is doing and I don't think he is being disingenous at all but I do believe he is seeing what others are seeing.  I'll leave it at that.

 

[Loco 3,754]

5 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

wait. the mask fairy doesn't exist?

[XYZ 2,154]

26 minutes ago, Skipper said:

In order to get that we need more testing data + large scale antibody testing.   Hell in New York alone mass antibody testing could tell us A LOT about this disease.  It's not perfect considering how much more dense it is + public transportation (i.e., you would expect it to spread faster there), but it would help.

Or create a good random sample.